"War President"

[Awimoway]

Small (http://www.danielsh.com/warpres/warpresSMALL.gif)
Medium (http://www.danielsh.com/warpres/warpresMED.jpg)
Large (http://www.danielsh.com/warpres/warpresBIG.jpg)

The impact is far greater if you click on the large version. I recommend it if your bandwidth can support it.

[poopyhead]

now that should be a campaign poster

I wonder how many people would understand that it is anti-war

[skunk]

now that should be a campaign poster


For which side?

[poopyhead]

For which side?

against Bush

[skunk]

Maybe a black border and a bit of red....

[Awimoway]

I decided not to post the link about where it came from because I was interested to see whether it would be taken as a pro or anti-Bush poster. I mean, he is proud of the fact that he is a war president. Some war supporters might think it's very moving. It's a work of art, in my opinion, and you can take it to mean whatever you want.

But when I stare into the eyes of those fallen people (these are all war dead, if you didn't realize), it doesn't make me proud of that asshole in the White House.

[poopyhead]

I decided not to post the link about where it came from because I was interested to see whether it would be taken as a pro or anti-Bush poster. I mean, he is proud of the fact that he is a war president. Some war supporters might think it's very moving. It's a work of art, in my opinion, and you can take it to mean whatever you want.

But when I stare into the eyes of those fallen people (these are all war dead, if you didn't realize), it doesn't make me proud of that asshole in the White House.

I whole heartedly agree especially when they appear to have died for a war built upon a crust of lies for nothing more than a decade old vendetta and a political shell game
how many more young men and women will have to die to reassure bush's re-election
how many more will have to die before the american people start to see the deadly farce we have been lead into

[Frohickey]

Now the question is...

Did all the families of these brave soldiers give permission to have the likeness of their fallen family members to be used to compose the final image?

I think, maybe not.

[poopyhead]

Now the question is...

Did all the families of these brave soldiers give permission to have the likeness of their fallen family members to be used to compose the final image?

I think, maybe not.

what bearing does that have on the discussion at hand

[Neserk]

Now the question is...

Did all the families of these brave soldiers give permission to have the likeness of their fallen family members to be used to compose the final image?

I think, maybe not.


They don't have to. As part of the Military they are public property.

[Frohickey]

They don't have to. As part of the Military they are public property.

The practice of slavery ended back in the late 1800s. Last I remember, a Republican president was C.i.C. during that time.

[Ugg]

They don't have to. As part of the Military they are public property.

and gw has made that perfectly clear to everyone in the military. Duty in IRaq extended how many times? No talking to the press unless they have been approved and vetted to be little more than a gw supporter. Need I go further? gw has no respect for any of those who have served.

[pseudobrit]

The practice of slavery ended back in the late 1800s.

Military service is voluntary. A volunteer is not a slave.

Last I remember, a Republican president was C.i.C. during that time.

Smug, ain't ya?

[poopyhead]

The practice of slavery ended back in the late 1800s. Last I remember, a Republican president was C.i.C. during that time.

as I remember he was president of a separate nation (given that the south had succeeded) at the time he eradicated slavery in the South through the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus he proclaimed freedom for those whom he had no command over. This would be like Bush proclaiming Iraqi freedom from saddam and then forcibly removing him from power and subjugating the people. Oh, wait. Frohikey I guess you did have a good point.

[pseudobrit]

Now the question is...

Did all the families of these brave soldiers give permission to have the likeness of their fallen family members to be used to compose the final image?

I think, maybe not.

Military photos are not copyrighted. In addition, the pictures are arranged in such a way that they've become more an art piece.

You couldn't sue Andy Warhol because he didn't take the picture of Marilyn Monroe that he derived his famous art from.

[zimv20]

Military photos are not copyrighted. In addition, the pictures are arranged in such a way that they've become more an art piece.

You couldn't sue Andy Warhol because he didn't take the picture of Marilyn Monroe that he derived his famous art from.
fair use is still in play. though disney and others are working hard at undermining such a monstrous concept.

[IJ Reilly]

what bearing does that have on the discussion at hand

None. It was designed to distract from the discussion some wanted to have about the American service men and women killed in Iraq. See how well it worked?

Incidentally, the NewsHour on PBS has been running these photos for over a year now. They call it the "honor roll." These people have served honorably. It's their bosses in the White House who have not.

[Frohickey]

Military service is voluntary. A volunteer is not a slave.

Smug, ain't ya?

What was said is:
They don't have to. As part of the Military they are public property.

Slaves are the only things that are human and also property. Agreed, military service is voluntary, and a volunteer is not a slave, so a volunteer is not property either.

Smug... just reminding you of past history.

[pseudobrit]

Smug... just reminding you of past history.

Way past. The GOP ain't as grand as she was back then.

And soldiers being regarded as public property is much different than the private property that slavery represented.

[Frohickey]

None. It was designed to distract from the discussion some wanted to have about the American service men and women killed in Iraq. See how well it worked?

Incidentally, the NewsHour on PBS has been running these photos for over a year now. They call it the "honor roll." These people have served honorably. It's their bosses in the White House who have not.

The point was that the families of these fallen soldiers have every right to determine when their likenesses are to be used. Were they consulted in use to create a mosaic of these fallen soldier's commander-in-chief? Especially for politicial purposes?

Its one thing to use the images to honor them. Its another to use the images to politicize an issue and put forth a particular viewpoint, especially if that viewpoint is not something they might have shared in life.

I guess IJReilly would support the use of pictures of the 3000 WTC dead to create a mosaic of Osama. Shouldn't the families of the deceased be the final arbiter of the use of the images?

[Frohickey]

Way past. The GOP ain't as grand as she was back then.

I guess we'll know come November 2004.

[pseudobrit]

The point was that the families of these fallen soldiers have every right to determine when their likenesses are to be used.

No, they don't. I've explained above.

Its one thing to use the images to honor them. Its another to use the images to politicize an issue and put forth a particular viewpoint, especially if that viewpoint is not something they might have shared in life.

So if the Bush administration "honored" the fallen in a touching montage at their convention, it'd be okay? **** that. It's art, and the artist very likely thought his work WAS honoring the troops.

You're shooting blanks here.

I guess IJReilly would support the use of pictures of the 3000 WTC dead to create a mosaic of Osama.

Nice. You sound like sanfelipe.

Shouldn't the families of the deceased be the final arbiter of the use of the images?

No, for the reasons I posted above that you've ignored.

[Awimoway]

Frohickey's just using the only rhetorical device he can think of to discredit the picture. A sentimental yet wrongheaded argument that only the family should control how the casualties' pictures should be used. Poisoning the well. It's a distraction technique.

But regardless of whether it was appropriate to use the images or not, the fact still stands that Bush has these peoples' blood on his hands. He plunged the country into an illegitimate war, and he is responsible for their untimely deaths.

That's what really matters here. The facts of the picture, not its origins.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey's just using the only rhetorical device he can think of to discredit the picture. A sentimental yet wrongheaded argument that only the family should control how the casualties' pictures should be used. Poisoning the well. It's a distraction technique.

But regardless of whether it was appropriate to use the images or not, the fact still stands that Bush has these peoples' blood on his hands. He plunged the country into an illegitimate war, and he is responsible for their untimely deaths.

That's what really matters here. The facts of the picture, not its origins.

Distraction technique? Hmm... didn't know that I had that in me. If I had a family member that died in some action, I sure would expect that the use of their likeness is in sync with their sentiments when they were alive. If I was an artist, I would respect that desire, and get prior approval to use the likenesses in such a fashion.

Sounds like in your denouncement of my questioning of the appropriateness of the picture, that is the distraction. Trying to discount my argument that the picture is not appropriate but putting up a token opposition to it, and also heaping a dose of "its a distracting tactic".

Every President is responsible for the troops under their command. That's what being Commander-In-Chief is all about. Yes, there have been upwards of 500 dead/lost in combat with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a dangerous world out there. We are lucky, very lucky indeed, to have courageous men and women willing to fight for us far from home, away from their loved ones.

I think that its better to be fighting on someone else's backyard instead of our own. Sure, we will end up paying for the damage we cause, we always do, but at least our non-combatants are not dying, or its minimized when the fight is not in our backyard.

I consider these brave people my peers. I, too, have volunteered, when I was younger, to be put in harms way, but I was lucky that I was not needed. Would I, when I was younger, have liked to be in their shoes now, if it would have spared them their fate today? I dunno, I would like to say if the question were posed to me, that I can honestly say "Yes, I would gladly trade places with them."

What would you say? Be honest.

[poopyhead]

Distraction technique? Hmm... didn't know that I had that in me. If I had a family member that died in some action, I sure would expect that the use of their likeness is in sync with their sentiments when they were alive. If I was an artist, I would respect that desire, and get prior approval to use the likenesses in such a fashion.

Appeal to Emotion

Sounds like in your denouncement of my questioning of the appropriateness of the picture, that is the distraction. Trying to discount my argument that the picture is not appropriate but putting up a token opposition to it, and also heaping a dose of "its a distracting tactic".

red herring

Every President is responsible for the troops under their command. That's what being Commander-In-Chief is all about. Yes, there have been upwards of 500 dead/lost in combat with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a dangerous world out there. We are lucky, very lucky indeed, to have courageous men and women willing to fight for us far from home, away from their loved ones.

appeal to emotion, appeal to common practice, appeal to tradition, red herring

I think that its better to be fighting on someone else's backyard instead of our own. Sure, we will end up paying for the damage we cause, we always do, but at least our non-combatants are not dying, or its minimized when the fight is not in our backyard.

red herring and an appeal to emotion

I consider these brave people my peers. I, too, have volunteered, when I was younger, to be put in harms way, but I was lucky that I was not needed. Would I, when I was younger, have liked to be in their shoes now, if it would have spared them their fate today? I dunno, I would like to say if the question were posed to me, that I can honestly say "Yes, I would gladly trade places with them."

appeal to emotion, red herring,

What would you say? Be honest.

throw in some straw men and a little more poisoning the well and I'm right behind you

[Awimoway]

I consider these brave people my peers. I, too, have volunteered, when I was younger, to be put in harms way, but I was lucky that I was not needed. Would I, when I was younger, have liked to be in their shoes now, if it would have spared them their fate today? I dunno, I would like to say if the question were posed to me, that I can honestly say "Yes, I would gladly trade places with them."

What would you say? Be honest.

My grandmother was one of the first WAVES in World War II. My grandfather also served in the Navy during World War II. My father is a Vietnam vet and I grew up a military brat, living on Air Force bases. I will never forget the day we bombed Libya in 1986—we were stationed at one of the bases in England that sent planes on the mission. There was a kid in my class whose dad was a squadron commander, and we all knew that one plane didn't make it back but we didn't yet know who had gone down. The looked completely miserable and we all felt sorry for him. (As it turns out, it was a plane from another base the was shot down.)

I, myself, would probably be in the military today if it weren't for several physical disabilities I suffer from.

But Gulf War II victims have not died to make us safer. They have been robbed of that by a feckless leader. The war in Iraq made us less safe, not more so. Al Qaeda was not there. WMD's weren't there. Containment was working. Now we've stirred a hornet's nest, made new enemies, and spread our military thin, frustrating valid and vital efforts in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is now flooding Iraq and killing our men and women. Saudi Arabia trusts us even less and will support terrorists all the more. Now Iraq is turning into a guerilla situation.

These veterans have been robbed of the right to fight a just war, and that offends me and it ought to offend you. Is that honest enough? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Hey wait a minute -- you're talking about the people? I want to talk about their pictures!

[takao]

I consider these brave people my peers. I, too, have volunteered, when I was younger, to be put in harms way, but I was lucky that I was not needed. Would I, when I was younger, have liked to be in their shoes now, if it would have spared them their fate today? I dunno, I would like to say if the question were posed to me, that I can honestly say "Yes, I would gladly trade places with them."

i will be honest in my answer
my grandfather lost all his 3 brothers because of WW2 (2 by weapons,1 died in sibyria as a POW),he was wounded and has still some grenade-shell parts in his neck and is suffering from them
oh i forgot his father lost 2 brothers too during ww1

my grandmother lost all 3 uncles in ww2
etc..
and of course the family of my grandmother lost their relatives in eastern germany during an allied bombardement
...
one of my grand-grand-..- fathers fought against napoleon for the freedom austria
...
when i look back through our historic documents untill ~1520 (as long as our family lived here) every generation lost at least 1 son in a war

some died fighting for liberty of austria and others because of some insane politicians...

my grandfather said to us as children: "never ever trust a politician... never... they blind your eyes and send you in cruel,sensless wars"

i would rather leave a country than fight for nothing.. i don't want to leave my (future) children photo-collections where every 2nd died in a war (like our photocollections from the early 20 century)

i served my 8 months in army service but if some war emerged, i would have deserted (sp?) within 30minutes just like about 60% of all the other conscript


I think that its better to be fighting on someone else's backyard instead of our own. Sure, we will end up paying for the damage we cause, we always do, but at least our non-combatants are not dying, or its minimized when the fight is not in our backyard.

"as long as my own country isn't affected: war is ok"
for me personally this attitude is disgusting ... and i doubt i am the only one who feels the same ...

i thought the 9/11 taught the americans a lesson about how war never can be "one sided" and how pride comes before the fall...(i am against terrorism etc. but i still thought that mankind can learn from it failures in the past)....if this is really your attitude...then i was wrong

</anger>

[skunk]

"as long as my own country isn't affected: war is ok"
for me personally this attitude is disgusting ... and i doubt i am the only one who feels the same ...

i thought the 9/11 taught the americans a lesson about how war never can be "one sided" and how pride comes before the fall...(i am against terrorism etc. but i still thought that mankind can learn from it failures in the past)....if this is really your attitude...then i was wrong

</anger>

I too find this attitude disgusting. 9/11 should have shown you what a lie this is.